Christopher
Jackson appeals his convictions and sentences, claiming
violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. More
specifically, Jackson argues that the trial court should have
granted his second motion to suppress, that only a jury could
determine his status as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR),
and that his life sentence constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. We affirm.

Jackson
and two others broke into a home and held the home's four
occupants at gunpoint. The three assailants forced the
victims into a bathroom and took turns holding them while the
others collected valuables. Jackson later claimed one of the
victims had shorted him some marijuana in a recent sale. He
admitted he broke into the house but insisted he only
intended to take back that marijuana. He claimed the other
assailants-not he-had stolen the other items.

Among
the stolen items was an iPhone, so police quickly looked to
the "Find My iPhone" application to track the
assailants. Armed with real-time tracking and the description
the victims provided, officers broadcast a be-on-the-look-out
(BOLO) alert. An officer quickly identified a car in the same
area as the stolen iPhone, traveling in the same direction as
the stolen iPhone, and containing people matching the
assailants' general descriptions.

After
waiting for backup, the officer stopped the car, removed and
handcuffed the occupants, and conducted a protective sweep of
the car. The officer initially saw nothing in plain view but
then opened the trunk and found marijuana and a revolver with
an altered serial number. Her decision to open the trunk was
consistent with her department's "plus one"
rule, under which (she later testified) officers always
search the trunk of a vehicle during a felony traffic stop
"to make sure there's no other occupants either in
the vehicle or in the trunk."

Meanwhile,
other officers brought the victims to the traffic-stop
location. The victims identified Jackson and another male
passenger as participants in the robbery, and officers
arrested those two. Officers then searched the car's
passenger compartment incident to arrest, and they found
several items taken during the robbery including a wallet, a
handgun, and a victim's driver's license. They also
found the stolen iPhone that led to the quick apprehension.

The
State charged Jackson with burglary of a dwelling, aggravated
assault, marijuana possession, possession of a firearm with
an altered serial number, possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, and four counts of armed robbery.

Jackson,
who represented himself at trial, adopted his
co-defendant's two motions to suppress. The first motion
sought to suppress the evidence found in the trunk before the
show-up identification. The second motion sought to suppress
the evidence found in the passenger compartment during the
search incident to arrest.

The
court granted the first motion saying it was "not
convinced that [the plus-one] rule actually exists" and
that it was "ludicrous" for officers to believe
there could have been someone hiding in the trunk. The court
also explicitly rejected the State's argument that the
evidence should nevertheless be admitted under the
inevitable-discovery exception, stating that "without
the evidence from the trunk, there was no basis to detain the
individuals and the show-up might never have occurred."
After this ruling, the State moved to dismiss the charges for
marijuana possession and possession of a firearm with an
altered serial number.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But in
a later hearing on the second motion to suppress, the court
concluded police were justified in detaining Jackson
for the show-up and that "the show-up lineup would have
occurred irrespective of whether the property in the trunk
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.